Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Requires health insurance companies to give clear reasons when they deny patient claims.
The problem
Insurance companies deny medical claims but don't always explain why clearly. Patients struggle to understand decisions and appeal them effectively.
The proposal
The bill mandates that insurers provide detailed, written explanations for all claim denials in plain language patients can understand.
The impact
Patients gain clarity on denied claims and better ability to appeal. Insurers face new administrative requirements and potential legal obligations.
Clear explanations help patients know exactly why their claims were denied. This makes it easier for them to fix problems or appeal wrong decisions. Transparency builds trust in the insurance system.
When patients understand denial reasons, they can respond with better information. This could reduce frivolous appeals while helping valid ones succeed faster.
Clear communication prevents misunderstandings between patients and insurers. This could lower legal costs and customer service complaints.
Transparency helps patients see which insurers deny claims fairly and which ones don't. This encourages companies to make better decisions.
Insurers must create detailed explanations for every denial. This requires more staff time and systems, raising operational costs that could increase premiums.
Written explanations create paper trails that patients can use in lawsuits. Insurers may face more litigation even when denials were correct.
Creating detailed explanations for each denial takes longer than current practice. This could slow down the claims process overall.
The bill lacks detail on what counts as adequate explanation. Disputes over compliance could create confusion and inconsistent practices.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.